Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Memorandum - Supplemental <br />To: <br />Diana O’Dell, Principal Planner <br />Planning and Housing Division, City of Redwood City <br />Redwood City, CA 94063 <br />From: <br />Joshua Abrams <br />Baird + Driskell Community Planning <br />2635 Benvenue Ave <br />Berkeley, CA 94704 <br />Date: April 25, 2018 <br />Subject: Supplemental Analysis <br /> <br /> <br />Dear Ms. O’Dell: <br />Baird + Driskell conducted additional analysis to support consideration of Policy A, which would give <br />developers a choice of three different affordability levels. Generally, we used the same assumptions as <br />detailed in the original memo, except we changed the affordable pricing for the Low Income units so <br />they are more affordable (targeted at people making 70% of the AMI). We did this to better balance the <br />cost of the three options. We find the find all three scenarios feasible. <br /> <br /> AMI Eligibility Affordable Set <br />Aside <br />Density Bonus <br />Assumption <br />Profitability <br />Very Low Income 50% 12% 25% 20.4% <br />Low Income 70% 15% 25% 20.3% <br />Moderate Income 120% 20% 0% 19.5% <br /> <br />If a developer cannot use the density bonus, e.g. because it would raise their construction costs, they <br />would be expected to choose the Moderate income option. <br /> <br />7.A. - Page 56